Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: This is a good one for the memescape.

Topic: Free speech on campus (Read 975 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #25
Different universities (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo for the first, California State University, Fresno for the second). Both part of the same system, but different people responding.

who cares, this shit is systemic
Because blatantly deceptive arguments are worse than no arguments. I do think the difference between a person in charge of a system being racist and a system itself being racist matters, and the tweet obfuscates that difference.

When you say "this shit", what are you referring to? More tolerance for racists acting racist than for leftists expressing their views?
  • Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 07:37:50 PM by uncool

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #26
the reasons why a frat boy in black face gets a pass and shit talking a dead politician's wife gets you in hot water don't really resolve to individual flaws of specific office holders. these decisions by different people are made in the same broad cultural context of white supremacy (wherein blackface can just be a harmless prank and barbara bush gets to be a saint despite the gross shit she said about katrina victims) and the incentive/power structures of a university system (wherein causing trouble for student-customers is bad and disciplining faculty-workers is good)

also the article pretty clearly says "State school system accused" so i'm not really sure what you think is being obfuscated here. idgaf about the text of the tweet tbh, often i share articles in tweet form because it's easier.

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #27
Main reason I posted that was in response to the tweet, the headline, and the first few paragraphs of the article. Yeah, the subheadline says that, but I honestly see that as pretty vague - the system being accused of hypocrisy could easily happen even if it were a single school, and a single person making the decisions. The headline ("California university", singular) and first two paragraphs ("the university's tone", again singular, with no mention of a second university) pretty clearly imply that it's not just the same school system, but the same university implying the same administration. It's not until paragraph 6 that the article has any indication that these are even different campuses, let alone administrations that have nothing in common until 2 levels higher than one of the presidents (Fresno is a part of the California State University system, which is a part of the public university system in California).

I do appreciate your answer, as a note.
  • Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 08:42:47 PM by uncool


  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #29

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #30
Lol. Well played.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor


  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #32
lol:


And the investigation is over:

I'm guessing it took counsel 2 days to explain how fucking stupid they were, and 3 days for them to write this letter.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #33
haven't read it yet but



edit: summarizes a lot of stuff seen itt before but the part at the end about faculty firings seems original and is good
  • Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 05:43:17 PM by the idea of Harambe

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #34
George Mason allowed the Charles Koch Foundation to have its people sit on faculty hiring committees in exchange for donations:
https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889

Quote
In an email sent to faculty, students and staff Friday night, Cabrera said some gift agreements accepted by the public institution in Northern Virginia "raise questions concerning donor influence in academic matters."

"The agreements did not give donors control over academic decisions, and all but the earliest of these agreements explicitly stated that the final say in all faculty appointments lies in university procedures," Cabrera wrote. "Yet these agreements fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet."

The gifts supported faculty positions in economics, and the agreements granted donors "some participation in faculty selection and evaluation," Cabrera said. The pacts were accepted between 2003 and 2011, and all but one have expired. Agreements ­obtained by The Washington Post show that, in some cases, committees that helped select professors included members designated by a donor.

The email from Cabrera does not directly name the gift agreements that were troubling, but a George Mason spokesman confirmed that the note was related to funding from the Charles Koch Foundation, among other donors. Koch, a billionaire industrialist, is a backer of conservative political causes and a major donor to universities.

Quote
The Washington Post obtained a batch of agreements from a George Mason spokesman Friday night. Several of those agreements involve the Mercatus Center, a free-market research group that is based at the university but is an independent organization.

"It's now abundantly clear that the administration of Mason, in partnership with the Mercatus Center and private donors, violated principles of academic freedom, academic control and ceded faculty governance to private donors," said Bethany Letiecq, an associate professor of human development and family science at George Mason.

Letiecq, who is president of George Mason's chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said she was bothered by language that indicated donors had power in faculty hiring and a voice in decisions about whether professors remain at the school.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/george-mason-president-some-donations-fall-short-of-academic-standards/2018/04/28/bb927576-4af0-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #35
Corporations are people too my friend.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #36
From that Jeffrey Sachs piece - pointing out the big problem I have with FIRE:

Quote
Nevertheless, politics can be a factor. Stevens and Haidt cite data from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's (FIRE) Disinvitation Database to show that the political left is responsible for the vast majority of "disinvitation incidents", defined as episodes in which members of the campus community attempt to block an outside speaker from speaking on campus.

But we should be skeptical of this conclusion. First of all, the Disinvitation Database is incomplete. It especially undercounts disinvitation incidents at religious colleges and universities, of which there have been many over the years. All of these examples were instigated by the right. All of them were successful. None are in FIRE's database. And while some were cancelled due to quiet intervention by the university, others were the result of well-funded, nation-wide campaigns. Whatever the cause, the absence of these cases makes the imbalance between the left and the right seem much greater than it actually is.[5]

But even so, we should expect there to be more disinvitation attempts coming from the campus left than from the right. After all, that's where more of the students are (35% vs. 22% of incoming freshmen, according to one recent survey). The implication of Stevens and Haidt's argument is that liberal students are worse on free speech than conservatives. Maybe. Or maybe there are just a lot more of them.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #37
man, I came here to post that GMU story

the campus left at it again!

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #38


cool that all these federalist society loons are being made into lifetime federal judges

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #39
Hahahaha
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/leaders-of-turning-point-usa-bail-on-college-kids-to-hang-out-with-kanye-west

Good time for the kids to learn: these guys are grifters who give absolutely zero fucks about you, except as money and props.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #40

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #41
Same vp had previously come out in defense of Confederate monuments!

The coffee shop closed their campus location, offered employees jobs at their other nearby locations, and offered to rehire or pay severance to the two that were fired

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #42
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

Heard this on NPR friday night driving home, part 1 and 2 are great and the ending comment is awesome.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #43
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

Heard this on NPR friday night driving home, part 1 and 2 are great and the ending comment is awesome.

The article referenced in the TAL story:

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/state-of-conflict


Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #45
smh can't believe the campus left has struck again

Wolf researcher who accused WSU of silencing him gets $300K to settle lawsuit and go away

Quote
A leading wolf researcher has agreed to leave Washington State University at the end of the spring term in return for $300,000 to settle a suit he brought over infringement of his academic freedom.

Robert Wielgus, director of the Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University, pioneered research of wolf behavior in cattle country as the predators began their return to Washington.

Wielgus tracked the behavior of wolves and cattle and learned that the state's policy of killing wolves that had preyed on cattle was likely to lead to more cattle predation, not less, because it destabilized the structure of wolf packs.

The research was unpopular with ranchers, who complained to lawmakers in the Washington State Legislature, who, in turn, cut Wielgus' funding and removed him as principal investigator on his ongoing work, passing the funds through another researcher. It was a highly unusual move that eliminated Wielgus' money for travel, speaking at conferences or for research in the summer, the peak field months for his work.

feed all ranchers to wolves

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #46
crosspost

US State Passes Law Defining Any Criticism of Israel as 'Anti-Semitic' Just As They Kill 60 Civilians

headline is slightly exaggerating, but only slightly

Quote
According to the text of the measure, the definition of "anti-Semitism" will now include:
  • a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities;
  • calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews; making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective; accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
  • accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
  • accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations;
  • using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  • drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
  • blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions;
  • applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  • multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations;
  • denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist, provided, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

As can be determined by the long list of ways in which South Carolina will now define "anti-Semitism," individuals will be forced to tiptoe around a legitimate subject, and expressing an opinion that is no longer considered politically correct can now be legally used against them.

i expect defenders of free speech to shortly go berserk over this